Punjab Govt’s Controversy Over Chief Justice Appointment ‘Unfortunate, Uncalled For’: Satya Pal Jain
Governors of Punjab and Haryana conveyed their approval of the proposal, while the Haryana Government also sent its views in favour of the proposal on August 12 and 13, respectively
Punjab Government had sufficient time to communicate its views but had not conveyed any views till date
By Baljit Balli/ Babushahi News Network
Chandigarh, September 6, 2026: Senior BJP leader and Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain has termed the controversy raised by the Punjab Government over the appointment of Justice Ashwani Sharma as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as “most unfortunate and totally uncalled for.”
Talking to Babushahi News Network Jain said the appointment had been made by the President of India, the highest constitutional authority, under Article 217(1) of the Constitution, and that the prescribed procedure under the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) had been fully followed.
Jain said the Supreme Court Collegium, on August 6, 2026, had recommended names for appointment as Chief Justices of the High Courts of Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh and Punjab and Haryana in the first lot, followed by recommendations for Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir and Madhya Pradesh.
According to Jain, the views of the concerned state governments were sought on the proposals. He said that, as required under the MoP, both the Punjab and Haryana governments were informed of the proposal concerning the Punjab and Haryana High Court and their views were sought on August 10.
Earlier in n a press statement, Jain said the Governors of Punjab and Haryana conveyed their approval of the proposal, while the Haryana Government also sent its views in favour of the proposal on August 12 and 13, respectively.
He claimed that the Punjab Government had sufficient time to communicate its views but had not conveyed any views till date.
Jain further asserted that the views of state governments are not binding in the appointment process, as the prescribed requirement is only to seek their views. He said state governments do not have any “veto” power over such appointments.
He also criticised what he described as attempts to delay the judicial appointment process, saying that no one should sit over such proposals indefinitely with a view to “scuttle the judicial process and politicalise” a non-political issue.